One argument for Paul's epistles before Marcion

[robert j]

... Romans ... the spurious 16.25-27 as an ad hoc conclusion.

Why "spurious"? Why such a loaded characterization of the doxology?

Spurious = "not what it purports to be" = not written by the author under whose name it appears. Nothing loaded intended. Anything deutero-Pauline is spurious by definition.

Sure, we're discussing shades of gray.

I used the word as I intended to use it, and correctly, just as it has been used countless times in Pauline scholarship; I stand by it, and do not plan to be drawn into a semantic debate.

I'm with you --- I don't like getting mucked-up over semantics.

I think the real issue here is the nature of the doxology. I would like to kick that around with you, but I can't do it now. Perhaps we could delve into the nature of the doxology at a later date?

[Ben C. Smith]

Why "spurious"? Why such a loaded characterization of the doxology?

Spurious = "not what it purports to be" = not written by the author under whose name it appears. Nothing loaded intended. Anything deutero-Pauline is spurious by definition.

Sure, we're discussing shades of gray.

I used the word as I intended to use it, and correctly, just as it has been used countless times in Pauline scholarship; I stand by it, and do not plan to be drawn into a semantic debate.

I'm with you --- I don't like getting mucked-up over semantics.

I think the real issue here is the nature of the doxology. I would like to kick that around with you, but I can't do it now. Perhaps we could delve into the nature of the doxology at a later date?

Sure.

[MrMacSon]

Scholars are agreed that there was at least a hiatus during most of the second century when the Pauline epistles were ignored or suppressed ... because of their appeal to heretics or because they were actually heretical in character.

RM Price The Amazing Colossal Apostle, Introduction.

He reviews the Acts and Apocalypses of Paul current in the second century, asking who did and didn’t quote the epistles and why.

[ebion]

Many think only Galatians and Laodiceans/Ephesians have Marcionite origin, and I mostly agree with that.

1 Corinthians has the verse (1 Cor. 15:29) :

Seeing what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? why also are they baptized for the dead? (I Corinthians 15:29 [YLT])

Hermann Detering in The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles​ ​has the verse pointed out to him there which stopped​ me dead in my tracks (pun intended) (posted here):​

Proxy baptism for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29) has not been confirmed earlier than among the Marcionites in the second century.

​There is absolutely no way proxy baptism could be in a pre-60 AD story line, no matter when it was written.​
NO WAY. The Jamesian church was less than 30 years old, and they were all​ deep Hebrew believers (except the Apostate SPaul).​
​
Hence 1Cor. is post-150 AD at least; proxy baptism would not be until whatever​ the Marcionite church was well established, with enough dying Marcionites to need​ proxying, to such an extent they felt it necessary to work it into Holy Scripture.​
​
So in keeping with Detering, would that not argue that 1Cor. is demonstrably Marcionite, adding to Rom., and Gal. (at least) as Marcionite works, with all that that entails?​